Re: Aryan invasion theory and race
- --- In email@example.com, "Koenraad Elst" <koenraad.elst@...> wrote:
> Racism was the science of the day in recent history. If you denyRight of speech must be denied *today* to *living* racist pseudo-scholars, after any biological base for the racist discourse has been clearly negated by empirical science. The intellectuals you cite in your post did not know this *yet*.
> the right of speech to "racists", it means you have to burn the
> books of most intellectuals of the two centuries until 1945:
> Darwin, Voltaire, Hegel, Kant etc. etc., and politicians like
> Disraeli, slaves' emancipator Lincoln, anti-Nazi champion
> Churchill, can all be quoted making statements that would bring
> them to court under anti-racism laws today.
Once again, Koenraad: do you live in the 19th or the 21st century?
- As the author of a PhD dissertation and several books on Hindu politics, I would like to certify the following statement by Vishal:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "vishalsagarwal" <vishalagarwal@...> wrote:
> a Hindutva-vadin is one who subscribes to the views of Savarkar, Golwalkar etc. (...) In the eyes of [many half-informed Westerners and partisans of anti-Hindu causes], anyone who says that he is a Hindu and holds certain views based on his understanding of data automatically becomes a Hindutvavaadi. >
Exactly. Any Hindu who stands up for Hindu interests or voices one of the numerous well-founded Hindu grievances, is automatically labeled "Hindutva" in nearly all academic and journalistic forums. Defending Hindu causes is far from coterminous with Hindutva or "Hindu nationalism" as defined by Savarkar and espoused by the RSS movement, which is one very specific and highly un-traditional, Western-influenced (esp. Mazzini's Italian nationalism) strand in the spectrum of Hindu politics. Even the term "Hindu nationalism" is too generous as a synonym of Hindutva, e.g. a Sri Aurobindo was a Hindu nationalist par excellence yet was by no means a "Hindutvavadin". Aurobindo was Hindu first and nationalist only in the specific circumstances of the anti-colonial struggle; Hindutva is nationalism first. Thus, during the Ayodhya movement, Hindus correctly spoke of Babar as an "Islamic invader" and of Rama as a "Hindu hero"; the RSS spoke of Babar as a "foreign invader" and of Rama as a "national hero".
I have heard Vishal speak at a number of public meetings and read him in internet forums; not once have I heard or seen him represent the typical Hindutva positions, nor use its typical vocabulary.